Report Summarizer

Paste a weekly report, a project update or an earnings note and get back a TL;DR, the key findings, the risks and a set of recommendations — produced by scoring the sentences you supplied rather than by rewriting them, so every line in the summary can be traced to a line in the source.

A Summary You Can Audit

The objection to summarising tools is that you cannot tell what got dropped. An extractive summary answers that objection by construction: it selects sentences from your document instead of writing new ones, so the relationship between the source and the output is a selection rather than an interpretation.

• Sentences are scored by the frequency of the words inside them — a sentence built from words that recur throughout the report scores higher than one built from words that appear once — and then normalised by length so long sentences do not automatically win.
• Two bonuses adjust the ranking. A sentence falling in the first or last fifteen percent of the document is multiplied by 1.4, on the reasonable assumption that reports put their conclusion at the edges. A sentence containing a percentage, a currency figure, a decimal or a number of three digits or more is multiplied by 1.25, which is what pulls quantified claims to the top of the summary.
• Four sections come out: a TL;DR, key findings, risks and recommendations. The findings, risks and recommendations sections are assembled by matching sentences against three separate trigger-word lists of thirty, twenty and twenty-two entries, covering words like concern, delay, shortfall and volatility for risk, recommend, should and next steps for recommendations, and grew, launched, achieved and record for findings.
• A sentence that matches both a risk and a recommendation trigger is classified as a risk only. This is a deliberate tie-break: the sentence is about something going wrong, and filing it as advice would bury the problem.
• Word and sentence counts update as you paste, and the top keywords the scorer relied on are shown, which is the closest thing to an explanation for why one sentence outranked another.
• Audience and Length selectors shape which sections are emphasised and how much of each is shown — Brief returns a paragraph plus bullets, Standard returns four sections, Detailed expands each section rather than inventing new ones.

Getting the Best Out of an Extractive Pass

1. Paste the report as text, keeping sentence punctuation intact. The scorer splits on sentence boundaries, so a wall of text with no full stops is treated as one enormous sentence and the position weighting stops meaning anything.
2. Keep the document in its original order. The first-and-last-fifteen-percent bonus assumes headings and conclusions are where the writer put them, and reordering the text to put the good parts first works against the scoring rather than for it.
3. Pick the audience before reading the output, not after. Choosing Executive trims toward the TL;DR and findings, while Team lead keeps more of the recommendations, since the reader is the one who has to act on them.
4. Choose Brief when the summary is going above the report. Choose Detailed when it is going alongside it as a covering note.
5. Read the risks section before the findings section. If the scorer found nothing there, check whether your report used concrete words like delay or shortfall — a risk described only as "a challenging environment" contains none of the trigger words and will be filed as a finding or dropped.
6. Copy the whole summary in one action, then edit. Deleting a sentence you disagree with is faster than building the summary by hand.

Matching the Tool to the Document

• Weekly and monthly status reports, where the summary is a distribution chore rather than an analytical task and consistency matters more than insight.
• Project updates written by several people, where the summariser's word-frequency scoring has an unexpected benefit: the phrases that recur across all contributors rise to the top, which surfaces the vocabulary the team actually agrees on.
• Earnings notes and investor updates, provided the numbers you care about are written in a form the scorer recognises. Figures with currency symbols, percentages and decimals all trigger the numeric bonus.
• Not a tool for a document with no structure. A rambling transcript with no conclusion at either end defeats the position weighting, and the summary will read as a selection of whatever happened to use frequent words.
• Not a replacement for reading a contract, a legal opinion or anything where a dropped sentence changes the meaning rather than the emphasis.
• Not suitable for text where the important information is genuinely distributed evenly from start to finish, such as a long list of unrelated line items.

Why the Numbers Land in the Summary

Take a monthly update of roughly forty sentences covering a product launch and a delay, and follow the two bonuses through the scoring.

• The launch sentence — "The new billing flow shipped on the 12th and sign-ups reached 4,200 in the first week" — contains a three-digit figure, so it takes the 1.25 numeric bonus on top of a word-frequency score that is already high, because billing, flow and sign-ups recur throughout the document.
• The delay sentence — "The migration was delayed by three weeks because of a dependency gap" — contains delay and gap, both risk triggers, so it is filed under risks rather than findings. It also contains a number and takes the same numeric bonus, which is why it appears high in its section even though the writer put it in the middle of the document.
• A recommendation sentence using should or next steps is filed separately and never duplicated into risks, so the same issue does not appear twice in the summary and look like two problems.
• A vague sentence like "the quarter was challenging" scores low on frequency, contains no number, sits mid-document and matches no trigger list, so it disappears entirely. This is the single behaviour to check before trusting the output: soft language is systematically excluded.
• For a Brief summary the sections collapse to a paragraph and a short bullet list, and the sentences that survive are the ones with both a high frequency score and a numeric bonus — in practice, the quantified claims.

What the Scorer Cannot Do

Because selection replaces generation, the summary will never contain a sentence that is not in your document. That is the guarantee, and it is also the ceiling. The tool cannot reconcile two contradictory findings, cannot tell you that a risk matters more than a finding, and cannot compress a sentence into a shorter one. It also cannot see a risk that was described with soft vocabulary, since the classification is a keyword match rather than a judgement about meaning. The trigger lists cover English terms plus a short set of common non-English equivalents, so a mixed-language report still classifies rather than falling through entirely.

• Scoring is frequency-based, which means a report that repeats a minor point will rank that point highly. Repetition reads as importance to this kind of scorer, and only the reader knows the difference.
• The position bonus is fixed at the outer fifteen percent on each end. A conclusion in the middle of a document gets no boost.
• Everything runs locally: the text you paste is scored in the page and nothing is transmitted. There is no account and no key involved in the default path.
• If you connect an AI provider, the report text is what gets sent. For documents with unpublished financials that is a decision worth making deliberately, and the extractive path is there for when the answer is no.

Questions Before You Trust a Summary

Will the summary ever say something the report does not?

No. Every sentence in the output is lifted from your document, which is what makes it safe to circulate without re-reading the whole thing. The trade-off is that the summary inherits the report's weaknesses: if the writer buried the real problem in soft language, the summary will not surface it, because there is nothing to surface.

Why did an important paragraph not make it into the summary?

Three common reasons, in order of likelihood. It used vague vocabulary instead of the trigger words the classifier looks for, so a risk reads as a general observation. It sat in the middle of the document, so it missed the position bonus. Or the words in it were unusual for the document as a whole, so it scored low on frequency even though it was the most important sentence. Rewriting it with one concrete noun and one number usually brings it into the summary on the next pass.

What is the difference between the Brief, Standard and Detailed lengths?

They change how much of each section is kept, not what the sections contain. Brief gives a paragraph and bullets for a reader who will not open the report; Standard gives the four sections; Detailed expands each section with more of the ranked sentences. Because the underlying ranking is the same, a sentence that appears in Detailed but not in Brief is one that scored lower, not one that was judged out of scope.

Is it safe to paste a confidential report?

In the default extractive mode, yes — the scoring happens inside the page, so the text is never sent anywhere, and you can confirm that by watching the network panel while you paste. Connecting an AI provider changes that, because the report body is what gets transmitted to the provider you chose. The default path exists so that the confidential case does not force you to choose between summarising and not.

Last verified: October 3, 2026

Launch Report Summarizer

All Tools · AI Tools · About · How We Test · Contact · Privacy

Maintained by Huang Bin · Last updated October 3, 2026